Skip to main content

About your Search

20130115
20130123
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2
the election and during this tax battle, it could get even worse, because under a 2010 law, dodd-frank, public companies are supposed to disclose the relationship between what their ceo makes - that's already public information - but they are supposed to compare it and give a ratio with what their median employee, kind of the typical employee, makes. so this is something that people can compare from company to company just to see how much more - "wow, the ceo makes 300 times more than the typical worker here!" > in some companies it wouldn't be that dramatic - an investment bank, for example. but at other companies - you had mentioned earlier wal-mart - it would be a hugely divergent number. > > take goldman sachs. their ceo makes a lot of money, but there are a lot of people at goldman sachs who also make a lot of money. so the disparity wouldn't be as great maybe as wal-mart or some retailer where you have a ceo who probably makes a lot, but you have a lot of minimum-wage workers. so that is going to be a big disparity. > also in corporate governance, we are going to know a little bit more a
in 365 days. with no presidential election, no stimulus programs on the horizon and healthcare reform upheld, 2013 should be smooth sailing for the economy, right? to almost no one's surprise, it's not that simple. despite that, in our cover story, we found a few people willing to stick their necks out and share with us their predictions. most everyone we found had reason for measured optimism. housing prices, for example, are going up. "there's hope that you can climb out. that's just a game- changer." and that opens up housing- related investment, which in turn may help stocks. "i see certain sectors helping the stock market. i see that true of the housing sector. look at real estate, look at building supplies, things that have been down in the past." as for jobs, john challenger says though the economy has been adding an average of 150,000 jobs a month, we may not need that many to make unemployment itself go down. the reason - baby boomers. "there are many more baby boomers retiring, so we don't need nearly as many new jobs as we did a decade ago." as for overseas trade, china's e
Search Results 0 to 1 of about 2